HC Deb 02 May 1934 vol 289 cc377-401
Mr. SPEAKER

I do not propose to select the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) to leave out the Clause.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out from "regulations," to "provide," in line 6.

I rise to move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friends in whose names it stands. The Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (a) of Subsection (1). Paragraph (a) reads : provide for including the class of persons employed in insurable employment among the classes of persons employed in excepted employment; The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with persons in certain industries who may be in the position of foremen over workers who are classed as manual workers. Up to the present it has been possible for the Minister, apparently, either to include or exclude that type of person from insurance. Our object in moving the deletion of this paragraph is to make certain that such a person shall in future be included among the insured. The effect of paragraph (a) is to restrict the area of insurability. Separate rulings have been given in respect of different factories in determining whether certain grades of workers are mainly engaged in manual work or not. In certain cases foremen are included among those mainly engaged in manual work, and in others it has been held that their duties are not mainly of a manual character.

Mr. LUNN

I beg to second the Amendment.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

I confess again that until I heard the explanation of the hon. Member I did not know why this Amendment had been put down. Perhaps it is not extraordinary that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) was not in his place to move the Amendment which Mr. Speaker did not select, because I have some recollection of a promise being given to meet one of his points in the regulations under the Clause, and if Mr. Speaker had called that Amendment and effect had been given to it, that would have prevented us from doing what he had asked. This Clause was devised in order to give that elasticity in the administration of the Acts which the Royal Commission recommended, and which I think the House has realised to be necessary. Its object is to remove anomalies under which a man is one day engaged in an insurable occupation and the next day finds himself in a non-insurable occupation, although, as far as one can see, there is no difference in the kind of work he is doing. It is clear that the anomalies will not be all of one class, and it may be that in some cases it will be easier to remedy the situation by excluding one or two persons from insurance than by including a very much larger number of other persons. We think it desirable to have the power to include or to exclude as we may think desirable. I can assure my hon. Friend that none of these regulations will be issued without full examination and without full opportunity for both sides to be heard, and he need be under no apprehension that justice will not be done.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

I quite appreciate the value of Sub-section (2), because it gives power to the Minister which has been wanted for quite a long time. Considerations such as these arise out of the recent law case, which was only one' of a batch of cases, in which sections of employés have been excluded. The Ministry of Labour did not raise this case of its own volition, because it was clearly intended that those classes should be inside the Act. There was also the case of the miner who, during one week was working in the pit, and who then came to the surface as his employer's attendant, upon which he immediately became a domestic servant for the purpose of the Act. That is, of course, absurd.

We were very pleased to hear the statement which the hon. Gentleman made on the first occasion when this matter was discussed. It was explicit enough. The hon. Gentleman says that they have power definitely to include, and also the power to exclude. We want to make sure that that power will be rationally used. Sometimes it presents the Ministry and the man concerned with a kind of dilemma. If the hon. Gentleman gives us the assurance that there will be no attempt to use the power of exclusion in an arbitrary way, we can withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. HUDSON

I can certainly give that assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I comment on the fact that the hon. Members who had their names down to this Amendment on this most important Bill never came in to move it, and that no one seemed to know much about it?

Mr. E. WILLIAMS

Without any further explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN

I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out Sub-section (2).

This Sub-section reads : Section four of the principal Act shall cease to have effect but any order or special order made under that section shall continue in force and have effect as if the provisions thereof had been made by regulations. Section 4 of the principal Act to which reference is made, and which is to be revoked by this Sub-section, reads : The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, by order provide for including among the persons employed within the meaning of this Act any persons engaged in any of the excepted employments specified in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, or any class or description of the persons so engaged, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order. The Minister has, at the moment, power by order to include certain industries and classes of persons within the scope of unemployment insurance. The purpose of the Sub-section is to divest the Minister of the power that he now possesses. The purpose of our Amendment is to secure that he shall still retain that power. The employments which he has the power to bring into insurability by order include employment in agriculture—including horticulture and forestry—in the naval, military or air service of the Crown and under any local authority. There is a large number of others, such as employment in the service of public utility undertakings. There is a long list with which I will not weary the House.

We found it rather difficult at first to understand why the Minister was divesting himself of power in this way, but the progress of the Bill in Committee has cleared the clouds away and we now understand why the Minister is so modest as to want to give away this power to the Statutory Committee. It is a further stage in stripping from the Minister—by stripping from the Minister it is stripping from the House—the functions that he at the moment possesses. It is the Rake's Progress of the National Government upon which they have set their feet. We had an experience of it a little earlier in the Debate. The Minister is now becoming a pale shadow of his former self. The House is entitled to ask the Minister at any time why he does not bring agriculture into unemployment insurance, and upon innumerable occasions he has been asked that question, and the question has been discussed over and over again. Knowing very well that this is a particularly thorny question, and that if he puts this Sub-section in the Bill without any other provision he might have trouble, even from his own followers in agricultural districts, the Minister has protected himself by putting in Clause 21. The Minister can include agriculture, including horticulture, in insurance by order, but Clause 21 reads: The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act make such proposals as may seem to them practicable for the insurance against unemployment of persons engaged in employment in agriculture, and shall make a report to the Minister containing the proposals and any recommendations of the Committee with respect thereto and the report shall be laid before Parliament. It will be clear to hon. Members that there is no obligation upon the Minister to act upon that report. All that happens is that the Statutory Committee are called upon to make a report. If Clause 21 were not in the Bill and this Sub-section were in, the Minister would find himself opposed in the House with the argument, "You are stripping yourself of power to bring agriculture in by order, and you are making no provision to discuss the insurability of agriculture," and so he puts in Clause 21.

All that is simply playing with the House of Commons. The Minister knows very well that there is no piece of legislation so difficult and so embarrassing, and giving rise to so many difficulties, as the inclusion of agriculture in unemployment insurance. Instead of being perfectly straightforward and standing at the Box and saying, "We do not propose to include agriculture," he says neither the one nor the other, but he simply says, "I will relieve myself of embarrassment by giving these powers to the Statutory Committee so that no hon. Member can then get up and ask me why I do not exercise the powers. In order that I may be defended from a charge of forgetting it altogether, I will ask the Statutory Committee to make a report to me upon the matter." The House cannot afford to have Ministers acting in accordance with these attenuated precautions. To the extent that the Minister strips himself of power he also strips the House of power, because we can exercise the power only through the Minister. The argument might be made, and the Parliamentary Secretary might even now be getting ready to make it, that we are saying that the Minister should have power to bring in agriculture by Order, whereas we have argued against Orders all the way through; but this has been on the Statute Book since 1920. It was put on the Statute Book in order that the area of insurability might be extended wherever it was thought desirable and when the condition of industry showed that such an attempt ought to be made. The Minister must provide us with more explanation than we have hitherto had. We have had no clear line at all.

He may say, "We desire to obtain the advice of the Statutory Committee." How the Statutory Committee can provide him with information which is not in his possession now I do not understand. The Statutory Committee are having all sorts of things imposed upon them. They are going to be the important body in the future and the House of Commons will not matter at all. The Minister will be communicating with the Statutory Committee and the Statutory Committee with the Minister; the House of Commons will be by-passed and short-circuited. We shall merely come here to ratify the result of their conversations. We are anxious that the Government shall be exposed to pressure in this House for the bringing of these categories into insurance, and we do not want the Minister to hide behind the Statutory Committee. We do not want him to say : "The Statutory Committee is awfully busy in altering the scheme, and it has not had time to consider this matter. We ought to give them further time." We do not want an inspired report from the Statutory Committee recommending against the inclusion of these categories of workers; we want the Minister of the Crown to stand up to his responsibilities, and by so standing up still to retain for this House its dignity and status in respect of unemployment insurance.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to second the Amendment, because I want the Minister to give some explanation why the Subsection is being taken out of the Bill. It appears that the Minister is taking back some power into his hands in regard to what was knocked out under the other Act, and that the intention is to hand that power over to the Statutory Committee. We wish the Minister to retain whatever powers he has, rather than to hand them over to an outside body. We have taken exception to the work of Parliament being handed over to the Statutory Committee. This Sub-section will give the Statutory Committee further powers, if I read it aright. It is difficult to understand why this Sub-section is striking out part of the principal Act, because one would have thought, in the circumstances, that the Minister would have retained that power even though he handed over some of the work to the Statutory Committee. We feel that there ought to be an explanation, and I hope the Minister will let us know what the position is.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) showed by his speech that he had not read either the Bill or the Act of 1920, and I must come to the conclusion that he has misled the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Under the Act of 1920 the Minister has power by Order to include in the insurance scheme the classes which are specified in the Schedule, but he has only power to include them on the existing terms. My hon. Friend asked my right hon. Friend why he has not included agriculture. This power has been in existence since 1920—

Mr. A. BEVAN

I did not ask him that question.

Mr. HUDSON

—and has never been exercised by any Government, either Coalition, Conservative or Labour, for the very good reason that it is, obviously, quite impossible to include agriculture in Unemployment Insurance at the same rates of contribution as the rest of the workers pay. That is the reason why that power has never been used. The hon. Member went on to say that, to the extent that the Minister strips himself of powers under this Subsection, he strips this House of its power. The hon. Member will forgive me for saying that the Minister does nothing of the sort. Under the Act of 1920 this House has no powers at all. My right hon. Friend, under that Act, can issue an Order to-morrow including agriculture without any reference to this House. Look at what he has now done. Under this Sub-section, as a result of stripping himself of this power, he has brought about the position that he can only bring agriculture in by bringing a new Bill before the House and giving this House a full opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr. A. BEVAN

A power which he never exercises, and does not intend to exercise.

Mr. HUDSON

I submit to the House that to describe that proposal as stripping the House of its powers is greatly to exaggerate. My right hon. Friend, far from wishing to get more power, is anxious to divest himself of powers which have been proved by the experience of the past not to be adapted to the purpose. That is why we have put in this Sub-section and have limited the powers that we possess to-day to the very narrow limits of the first part of this Clause, namely, dealing with certain marginal cases of anomalies. Far from stripping power from this House, we have, on the contrary, restored it.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

The hon. Gentleman has given for the first time what appears to him, at any rate, some sort of satisfactory explanation of this Sub-section. The House must, however, remember that this is the first time we have had an opportunity of hearing a Minister explain just what this Bill and certain Clauses and Sub-sections of it mean. To that extent my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explaining the Ministerial interpretation of the Bill. We have been somewhat fortunate in this respect, that in the Report stage we have just happened to drop on to those Clauses—at present, at any rate—that have not had an explanation. When, however, the hon. Gentleman suggests that we are to have more power as a result of handing over power to the Statutory Committee, he is asking too much of the imagination of this House.

I know it is suggested that by Order under Section 4 of the principal Act the right hon. Gentleman could bring agricultural workers in without any discussion at all. We are not likely to have any Minister fighting a case on this Act. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, no Government has been inclined to press this matter of agriculture. It is assumed that when the Statutory Committee get going we shall have a real opportunity of discussing any proposals that they might make. It might be that the proposals only exist in imagination. I know that the Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other right hon. Members have explained the many opportunities that we are to have to discuss proposals that are made by the Statutory Committee. We have, however, had some experience of all that kind of thing in the past. No one who has been in this House for any length of time can fail to know that if things are to be done by Orders in an indirect way, although 11 o'clock is thought to be a sufficient time, in actual practice, although in theory the right of discussion remains, no such right is in the hands of the House of Commons.

We suggest that the powers that are now in the hands of the Minister, however defunct they may have been, may have to be used at some time. The Statutory Committee has just about as much power as it can handle at the present time, without the House distinctly, directly, and deliberately divesting itself of its responsibility. The hon. Gentleman's answer may have convinced by its specious appearance those who do not know the practical working of the Act, but its effect would not be exactly what they expect, or what Members of this House would like it to be.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I must admire the Under-Secretary's very clever answer on this point, but it does not, in effect, mean quite what he meant it to mean. He said that he, or his chief, could bring in agriculture on the same terms as they can bring in building labourers and engineers, on the same contributions and with the same benefits. He knows as well as I do that no Minister would do that, for the reason that to bring in agriculture by Order would mean that the House of Commons would want to examine the whole question. A wise Minister, if he wanted to bring in agriculture, would introduce a Measure and submit it to the House. To find the real purpose of this Clause it is necessary to turn to the Act of 1920. When the proposal was put into that Act it was not meant that the Minister should have the sweeping power of bringing in any industry he chose. The 1920 Parliament knew, as well as the Under-Secretary knows, that no Minister could bring in agriculture by a stroke of the pen. The 1920 Parliament meant that there were a number of cases dealing with agriculture and certain other classes of work where it was advisable for the Minister to have the power to bring them in, but not as a sweeping Measure.

I will instance some which exist to-day. Municipalities up and down the country employ a large number of men in, for example, the parks department, men who are not in agriculture from the point of view of wages or conditions, but are as well, and even better, paid than the engineers. For good or ill, however, decisions of the High Court have placed them outside the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The power placed in the hands of the Minister in 1920 was never meant to allow him to bring in a whole industry such as agriculture, because the 1920 Parliament would never have agreed to that. What was meant was that in a case where people like that were ruled out but were not agricultural workers in anything like the strict sense, he should have power to bring them in if he wanted to. The provision was also meant to apply to men employed by a public utility company. He is now saying, "I do not want that power."

I said earlier, and repeat now, that Parliament has decided that certain classes are to come into Unemployment Insurance. The Minister ought to see that municipal employés or similar workers are not allowed to contract out because they are permanent employés. In other words, they should come into insurance on the same terms. Where I cannot understand the Act is that here you may have a man employed as a joiner by the Glasgow Corporation at much better wages and on much better conditions than joiners outside the Corporation, but because of that fact he is not brought into insurance. If, however, he is employed by private enterprise without those conditions, he is brought in, and I think he ought to be brought in. We say that in the 1920 Act the real reason why the Minister was given the power to bring in agriculture was that he should retain power to bring in a large number of people who might be affected in those industries, and whom it was thought advisable to bring in.

The argument the hon. Gentleman used to-day was, "I am going to make the scheme much more democratic; I am going to send the question to the advisory board and on their advice to draft a Bill and come down with it to the House of Commons." Those of us who knew agriculture in the last House of Commons, with the Labour Government, will remember that before they could consider it a Motion was specially made and tabled in the House of Commons. Even though the Minister had that power, he tabled a special Motion asking that agricultural workers should come into the scheme, and after that was carried, he said that we must have another Bill. The Government say that this Sub-section is to give us greater power. All that the principal Act meant was that there are a large number of people outside the Bill. Each time a question is asked, the hon. Gentleman will get up and say, "This body is considering the matter, and until it has considered the matter we shall not be able to give you any considered reply." It will be the same situation as that of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The only difference between us and the Tariff Reformers will be that the Tariff Reformers have much more power in this Government than we have. Their answer is that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is seriously considering the matter, and that they will give their opinion soon. In this matter we shall give our opinion on the question of agricultural workers being brought in, and be told that the Committee are considering it. If we ask about municipal workers, we shall be told that they are considering it.

Now the issue is not one of Parliament or not Parliament; it is, why is the Minister not introducing a Measure to bring that number of people within the fold? He can be questioned at that Box any day on why he is not introducing a Bill to cover those people, and he must answer. He will answer that the Committee are considering the matter; that they are very busy, and that the matter is being given a great deal of consideration. By the time he has finished his career at that job, somebody from this side of the House will take his place, in a different Government, and we shall question that Government, and be told that the matter is taking a long time, and never be able to get a Vote in the House of Commons. When we ask Mr. Speaker for permission to put a Motion down, he will say that the Act of Parliament gives the power to the Statutory Committee, and we shall not be able to get a Division. For years we shall be hung up by the constant answer that the Committee are considering the matter.

For the moment the House is considering it; the Minister is challenged, or censured, or subject to some form of Vote. The Under-Secretary gave a very clever reply, of the kind that we are always used to getting from him. I have, however, warned him that men like himself are sometimes inclined to become a shade too clever. I would say of the hon. Gentleman's reply that it was one that one would almost be tempted to give in his place to any opponent, and I do not blame him for it, but the real meaning of the reply is this. This power was given in order that the Minister himself might be able in certain cases to bring in particular classes of workers, such as agricultural workers. Now that this Clause is passing away from us, he has not that power; the matter must first be submitted to this Committee for its consideration. That is the point that my hon. Friend is really making.

7.16 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS

I should like to add my congratulations on the ingenuousness of the Parliamentary Secretary. He likes to assume a. simplicity of manner, no doubt deriving his inspiration from the Minister himself. But while the Minister somehow or other—I do not want to be unkind—inspires confidence by his simplicity of manner, the Parliamentary Secretary somehow or other makes us suspicious, because we know what an acute mind he has, and how thoroughly he understands the Bill. There is no innocence on his part. I think we want to free our minds from cant on this subject. It is quite clear that the object and purpose of this Clause, and of the Bill, is, rightly or wrongly, to take the insurance side out of politics—to take it away from the Minister and hand it over to the Statutory Committee. That was the recommendation, rightly or wrongly, of the Royal Commission, and that is the policy of the Government. Is it not better to say frankly that we are not now going to take any responsibility for adding new classes, for extending the scope of insurance to new sections of the community—that we want to take that away from Parliament and away from the Government Department and put it in the hands of this new Committee?

The new Committee may be extraordinarily clever and competent; it may be composed of the right people, who, possibly, may be far more competent to judge on this subject than the Minister; but this procedure does more or less take the initiative from Parliament and from the Minister—it takes the matter out of our control and hands it over to the Statutory Committee. That means that it will be made more difficult to in- clude black-coated workers, agricultural labourers, or domestic servants, because the procedure now will be on other lines. Is it not better that we should be quite frank and clear, that we should know what our position is, and that we should be able to say to our electors that we no longer have a direct responsibility in this matter, because certain machinery has been set up, and, as long as that machinery is in existence, as long as this Bill when it has become an Act remains on the Statute Book, our responsibility is lessened. That is the object of these simple, innocent words, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite conscious of it. It is not giving Parliament more control, but is giving Parliament and the Department less responsibility. That is the situation.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) says that we are giving up Parliamentary control. I am the last person to wish to give up Parliamentary control, but I would point out that, unless something is done to relieve Parliament of the intolerable burden of endless Debates on Unemployment Insurance Bills, important though they may be—a burden from which Parliament has suffered for the last 20 years—Parliament will be estopped from dealing with other matters which also are very important indeed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on the very able and excellent speech which he has just made. Indeed, the hon. Member occupies a unique position, for he is the one Labour Member with a thorough knowledge of the job. The inability of Labour Members in general to know their own Amendments is unequalled in the history of the Opposition. In these circumstances, I would like, if I may, to point out one very valuable thing that might come out of this present Debate, and that is that, as the Minister has one Labour Member who knows so much about these questions, and who stands so high in the esteem of the House, he might be a very good person to put on the Statutory Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR

I beg to second that.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS

After the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I think that the House will have discovered the reason why the Parliamentary Secretary made his speech, and why this Sub-section is to be included. It is for the purpose of taking the question of unemployment away from the House of Commons. That is the only deduction that one can draw from the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay—that Parliament must not be troubled with the most vital problem that concerns it, namely, unemployment, which must be relegated to an advisory committee, in order that that committee may consider whatever may be necessary from time to time. I think that the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has been substantiated by the reply that we have received.

We should certainly like the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to say something far more substantial in this regard than we have heard from them hitherto. There can be no doubt that the House in future, as regards this problem, will be placed in precisely the same position in which it is in connection with import duties and other matters. Hon. Members from Lancashire put questions from time to time with regard to Lancashire versus Japan, but no satisfactory answer is given to them, and we hear them give notice that, unless they can have a satisfactory reply from the Minister, the matter will be raised on the Motion for the Adjournmtnt of the House. That is what is happening with regard to the Tariff Board, and precisely the same thing will arise in connection with unemployment. The Minister will not be able to satisfy the House, for the obvious reason that Members will be prohibited from putting down specific questions regarding certain classes of persons who may be brought into insurance. We hope that we may have a further reply from the Parliamentary Secretary which will give us satisfaction, though frankly I do not believe he can satisfy us, and that it will be necessary for us to take a Division on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 254; Noes, 57.

Division No. 231.] AYES. [7.25 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Goff, Sir Park Pearson, William G.
Adams. Samuel Vyyyan T. (Leeds, W.) Goldie, Noel B. Penny, Sir George
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Perkins, Walter R. D.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Grimston, R. V. Petherick, M.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Pike, Cecil F.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Aske, Sir Robert William Gunston, Captain D. W. Pybus, Sir Percy John
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Guy, J. C. Morrison Radford, E. A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Hales, Harold K. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Beauchamp, Sir Brograva Campbell Hanbury, Cecil Rawson, Sir Cooper
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ray, Sir William
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Hartland, George A. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathanlel Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Remer, John R.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Brass, Captain Sir William Hepworth, Joseph Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Broadbent, Colonel John. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Rickards, George William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Ropner, Colonel L.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hornby, Frank Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Horns, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Browne, Captain A. C. Howard, Tom Forrest Ruhge, Norah Cecil
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Hume, Sir George Hopwood Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Carver, Major William H. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Iveagh, Countess of Salmon, Sir Isidore
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Cazalet, Thelma (Isllngton, E.) Jamleson, Douglas Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Ker, J. Campbell Scone, Lord
Christle, James Archibald Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Selley, Harry R.
Clarke, Frank. Kerr, Hamilton W. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Clarry, Reginald George Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Clayton, Sir Christopher Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Colfox, Major William Phillp Leckie, J. A. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Leech, Dr. J. W. Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Conant, R. J. E. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Cook, Thomas A. Lewis, Oswald Somervell, Sir Donald
Cooke, Douglas Liddall, Walter S. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Lindsay, Noel Ker Soper, Richard
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Lleweilln, Major John J. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Lloyd, Geoffrey Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Cross, R. H. McCorquodale, M. S. Spens, William Patrick
Crossley, A. C. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom McKle, John Hamilton Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Dalkeith, Earl of Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Stevenson, James
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) McLean, Major Sir Alan Stones, James
Davies, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset, Yeovil) McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Strauss, Edward A.
Denville, Alfred Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Strickland, Captain W. F.
Dickle, John P. Magnay, Thomas Summereby, Charles H.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sutcliffe, Harold
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Templeton, William P.
Dunglass, Lord Martin, Thomas B. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Eady, George H. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Eastwood, John Francis Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Eden, Robert Anthony Milne, Charles Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinferd)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Train, John
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Moreing, Adrian C. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Elmley, Viscount Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Turton, Robert Hugh
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Morris Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties) Ward, Lt.-Cot. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mere) Morrison, William Shephard Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Moss, Captain H. J. Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Munro, Patrick Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Wayland, Sir William A.
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (petersf'ld) Wells, Sidney Richard
Fox, Sir Glfford Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Weymouth, Viscount
Fraser, Captain Ian Nunn, William Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Fuller, Captain A. G. O'Donovan, Dr. William James Whyte, Jardine Bell
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Williams, Charlas (Davon, Torquay)
Glossop, C. W. H. Ormsby-Gore, St. Hon. William G. A. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Palmer, Francis Noel Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Womerslay, Walter James TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wise, Alfred R. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) Captain Austin Hudson and
Withers, Sir John James Mr. Blindell.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Barnays, Robert Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Grundy, Thomas W. Mllnar, Major Jamas
Buchanan, George Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Owen, Major Goronwy
Cape, Thomas Harris, Sir Percy Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Healy, Cahir Rathbone, Eleanor
Cove, William G. Hicks, Ernest George Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Holdsworth, Herbert Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Curry, A. C. Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) West, F. R.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) White, Henry Graham
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Dobble, William Kirkwood, David Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Leonard, William Wilmot, John
Foot, Issac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Lunn, William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pambroke) McEntee, Valentine L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) McGovern, John Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out Subsection (3).

This Sub-section gives the Minister power to enlarge the scope of excepted employment. Previous Amendments moved by my hon. Friends have been in the direction of urging the Minister to restrict the scope of excepted employment. We want the inclusion of the largest possible number of people in industry and, in an industry which is insured, we want everyone in it to be an insured person. I think the case can be made out very strongly by making reference to the frequent closing down of coal mines, where everyone who is employed, whatever his occupation, from the colliery manager to the youngest and newest recruit, is turned away and loses his employment. It is a very unfair regulation which would give the Minister the power to exclude any number of those people from the benefits of insurance in those circumstances. In this Sub-section the Minister has power to enlarge the range of excepted employments and to deprive a very large number of people, according to his judgment, of the right of insurability and of participation in the insurance scheme. There is the other point that the whole Clause brings confusion into the scheme. I understood Part I of the Bill to be a transference from the Ministry of Labour to the Statutory Committee. I thought the Statutory Committee were to be given the power to determine the conditions, the range of insurability and the qualifications for benefit. All those things are defined in the Second Schedule. But we find that, having regard to the state of the fund, the Statutory Committee is to determine what particular persons are to be added to those already insured, and what conditions are to be laid down for maintaining insurability. But here the Minister is breaking in upon his own Bill, and adding uncertainty and confusion to the whole scheme.

We do not resent strongly the idea that the Minister should, at his discretion, add to the number of persons in any industry, but when he is asking the House for power to exclude from insurance people whom he will determine for himself to shut out from benefit, people who are already perhaps insured persons, we should like further information on the point. Is it to be assumed that in the case of a person now deemed to be entitled to insurance, who has been a contributor for any number of years, the Minister can say : "This particular person is not employed for a sufficient number of days in any one week, and because he is not employed as long as other persons in the same industry, I will withdraw him. He is to be in an excepted category. I will receive no further contributions from him and provide no further benefit." If that case is possible under the Sub-section, does the Minister provide compensation for the loss of benefit? There is no one in the House who, reading the Clause, can answer the question. It is only the Minister, from the recesses of his own mind, who can answer it, and I invite him to do so. This is a very serious departure from the whole principle of the Bill, and I ask the Minister to withdraw all these provisions limiting the scope of insurability. It may be that there will be a small minority, perhaps one or two people out of 500 or 600 who are thrown out of employment by the closing down of a factory or a mine, and they will be told : "You were in an excepted category. There is no explanation, no redress, and no appeal. The Minister has decided by regulation that you are not to he regarded as an insurable person and you will cease to be insured." I should like the hon. Gentleman to give the House an assurance that the Clause will not adversely, harshly and unjustly affect people who are now employed. If he fails to give us satisfaction, we shall be forced to take the matter to a Division.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

I think that the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to relieve his mind. I can assure him that none of the apprehensions to which he has given expression is well-founded. This Subsection is very limited indeed in scope. It does not deal with large classes of persons but merely with individuals within a class, and therefore it does not make any enormous increase in the number of persons who are excepted. All that it does is to legalise the present practice. I do not know whether it is legal or whether it verges on the illegal, but the present practice is not to insist on contributions from persons who are employed only for inconsiderable periods. Let me give one or two illustrations. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that in his own industry in many areas the night-shift starts work at 10 o'clock on a Sunday. Technically a man who starts work at 10 o'clock on a Sunday night has to pay contributions in respect of the week of which Sunday is the last day and also in respect of the following week, and technically, in respect of one week's work, he is liable to pay two contributions.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD

One day's work.

Mr. HUDSON

I am assuming that normally he will be employed for the week, starting the week on the Sunday night. Wherever he starts before midnight, he is technically liable for two contributions. Obviously that is not the intention of the Act.

Mr. T. SMITH

In the mining industry a man who starts work on a night shift is always regarded as being at work on the day following.

Mr. HUDSON

I know he is, but it is very doubtful indeed whether that is legal.

Mr. SMITH

It is the practice in the coalfields.

Mr. HUDSON

I know it is, and the Sub-section is to legalise that practice. It is very doubtful indeed whether for a long period of years we have not been conniving at an illegality. Employment for an inconsiderable period of two hours on a Sunday night will in future be considered as non-insurable. The same sort of thing is true of sandwich-men who are engaged for two or three hours on a Saturday afternoon. It is clear that to ask a sandwich-man to pay 10d. out of a very small wage of three or four shillings for three or four hours' work is a great hardship. In practice we do not, in the great majority of cases, exact the contribution. There is a similar sort of case where a waitress is employed only for an hour or two on a Saturday or Sunday. Again, the practice is not to accept the contribution, although technically it is payable. It is in order to legalise our present practice as regards individuals, and not as regards great classes, that we have put this in and I think, on reconsideration, hon. Members will realise that, as long as it is limited, as it will be, to individual cases where the employment is inconsiderable, it is a provision that ought to be in the Act.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

The hon. Gentleman has argued the excuse of contributions on a particular date, but he has not argued for exempting the person from insurability because the person works the following week in insurable employment like a large number of other people. I think that the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. If that be the reason for the Sub-section, I would ask him to look at it again, because it does not fulfil his intention. It goes much further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

How would a man be affected who happened to have an accident between 10 and 12 midnight on Sunday after having worked on the Saturday? Would he be in the Insurance Fund for that time? You say that you are going to leave the position so that he would not be insurable for those hours?

Mr. HUDSON

It would not affect him. In reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), at present, where a domestic servant gets three hours' work in an insurable occupation during the week, technically she becomes an insurable person; we do not want to insist upon contributions for such a negligible amount of employment.

Mr. GRENFELL

That is a different case.

Mr. HUDSON

That is the case which is covered. That is broadly the line we take. In the case of the miner we do not exercise the whole of that power and excuse him from being insurable, but merely excuse him from the payment of a contribution in that occupation. I can assure hon. Members that there is no catch whatever.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON

The case of the miner is an example of the absurdity of the terms of employment. I understand that the miner who goes to work at 10 o'clock on Sunday night really becomes insurable if he only works two hours on Sunday, and also insurable in respect of the next week if he works for the next six hours or so on the Monday. The intention is to see that, instead of being charged two weeks' insurance contributions, his contribution shall be in respect of one week. It is true that the Ministry have all kinds of contradictions of that kind to handle. There is the further point which was raised to the effect that certain classes work only a few hours during the week, and it is the desire of the Ministry to see that they are excused from the payment of contributions. I know that there are odd cases where that is so, but I think that, if the Ministry exercise powers to except such people, they will probably very soon find themselves on the other side of the fence. People will be deliberately engaging boys or girls or young men or young women for a few hours in order to avoid making the insurance contribution, whereas otherwise they might employ them for a few days or a week. I wonder whether, if those regulations are used, the Ministry will not find types of employers who will deliberately use that knowledge and avoid paying contributions by employing people for short periods. I know that the Ministry of Labour would not countenance people of that description. There are the very good employers, but there are also the in-different employers, and the unscrupulous employers, and I am pretty sure, if the Ministry exercise the right of making regulations, difficulties may arise.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON

With the leave of the House, I would say that I think the hon. Member has not quite appreciated what I said earlier, that these regulations will not apply to whole classes of persons, but only to individuals. It will not be a matter of saying that all boys who are-not employed for more than three hours-in a week shall come under this Clause It will be a case at each exchange of Tom, Dick or Harry on a certain date. It will be a discretion exercised on behalf of the Minister by the manager of the exchange in each individual case.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Why have regulations? As I see the position, you are practically doing something which is not legal, but it has this virtue, that it avoids making a general regulation to allow people to employ workers without intending to pay the contributions. As long as it is illegal you have always the power to come along and stop an individual case. Why make a regulation? Is the regulation intended only to give exchange managers power to take action? If that be so, I have no objection.

Mr. HUDSON

A power of this kind has to be exercised with discretion. Each ease will be dealt with by the exchange manager, who will see that the danger foreseen by the hon. Member is avoided as far as possible.

Mr. LAWSON

The Ministry cannot avoid the danger of the unscrupulous employer. The word may be passed round that this regulation is there, and they will get away with it by employing a worker perhaps only half a day when otherwise they might have employed him for a week. I am not sure that the spreading of good news of this kind might-not land the Ministry into difficulties.

Mr. HUDSON

I cannot conceive that this sort of thing would arise in practice. A man would not employ, say, 12 separate boys for 12 separate half days in order to escape the payment of 2d.

Mr. BUCHANAN

In so far as the worker is exempt here, I take it that it does not mean that he would also be exempt under Health Insurance? Exemption

here would not automatically carry Health Insurance exemption?

Mr. HUDSON

Oh, no.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 243; Noes, 44.

Division No. 232.] AYES. [7.58 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Everard, W. Lindsay Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Ford, Sir Patrick J. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Allen. William (Stoke-on-Trent) Fraser, Captain Ian Martin, Thomas B.
Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Fuller, Captain A. G. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Aske, Sir Robert William Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonet John
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Glossop, C. W. H. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Atholl, Duchess of Gluckstein, Louls Halle Milne, Charles
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Goff, Sir Park Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Grattan-Doyie, Sir Nicholas Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Moreing, Adrian C.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.) Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Beaument, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Bernays, Robert Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Gunston, Captain D. W. Moss, Captain H. J.
Borodale, Viscount. Guy, J. C. Morrison Munro, Patrick
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hales, Harold K. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Brass, Captain Sir William Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Broadbent. Colonel John Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Nunn, William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Harris, Sir Percy O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Brown, Ernest (Lefth) Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n) O'Neill. Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Browne, Captain A. C. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Palmer, Francis Noel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Pearson. William G.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Peat, Charles U.
Burghley, Lord Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Penny, Sir George
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Hepworth, Joseph Perkins, Walter R. D.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Petherick, M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington. E.) Holdsworth, Herbert Pike, Cecil F.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.) Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton le Spring) Hornby, Frank Pybus, Sir Percy John
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Horsbrugh, Florence Radford, E. A.
Christie, James Archibald Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Clarry, Reginald George Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Ramsay. T. B. W. (Wastern Isles)
Clayton, Sir Christopher Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ramsbotham, Herwald
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Remsden, Sir Eugene
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Colfox, Major William Philip Iveagh, Countess of Ray, Sir William
Conant, R. J. E. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Jamieson, Douglas Held, David D. (County Down)
Croft, Brlgadler-Gegeral Sir H. Jennings, Roland Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) Remer, John R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Cross, R. H. Kerr, Hamilton W. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Crosslay, A. C. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Rickards, George William
Cutverwell, Cyril Tom Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Curry, A. C. Law, Sir Alfred Ropner, Colonel L.
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Leckle, J. A. Runge, Norah Cecil
Davies. Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Leech, Dr. J. W. Russell. Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Denville, Alfred Leighton, Major B. E. P. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Dickle, John P. Lewis, Oswald Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Dower, Captain A. V. G. Liddall. Walter S. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lindsay, Noel Ker Salt, Edward W.
Dunglass, Lord Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Eady, George H. Lleweilln, Major John J. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Eastwood, John Francis Llewellyn-Jones. Prederick Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Edmondson, Major A. J. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Scone, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Lyons, Abraham Montagu Selley, Harry R.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Elmley, Viscount MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. McKle. John Hamilton Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Emrys-Evans. P. V. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McLean, Major Sir Alan Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mars) McLean. Dr. W. H. (Tradaston) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Essenhigh, Reglnald Clare Magnay, Thomas Smith, R. W. (Aberd-n & Kine'dlne, C.)
Somervell, Sir Donald Strickland, Captain W. F. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Summersby, Charles H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East) Sutcllffe, Harold Wells, Sidney Richard
Soper, Richard Templeton, William P. Weymouth, Viscount
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Thomas, James P L. (Hereford) White. Henry Graham
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Spencer. Captain Richard A. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Touche, Gordon Cosmo Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Spens, William Patrick Train, John Wise, Alfred R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Turton, Robert Hugh Withers, Sir John James
Stevenson, James Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Stones, James Wallace, John (Dunfermllne)
Storey, Samuel Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Strauss, Edward A. Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Blindell.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Owen, Major Goronwy
Batey, Joseph Grundy, Thomas W. Parkinson, John Allen
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hicks, Ernest George Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Buchanan, George Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Cape, Thomas Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) West, F. R.
Cove, William G. Kirkwood, David Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Leonard, William Williams. Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lunn, William Wilmot, John
Dobbie, William McEntee, Valentine L.
Edwards, Charles McGovern, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maxton, James